CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background
of the study, problems of the study, objectives
of the study, significance of the study,scope and limitation of the study and definition of the key terms.
1.1 Background of the Study A good communication is needed for everyone in
interaction with others in order the
communication run well and effectively. Besides, a good communication is needed because it can avoid
misunderstanding andmisinterpret between the speaker and the hearer. There is a theory that
helps people be cooperative in conversation,
it is cooperative principle; a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice 1975, stating that
participants expect that each will make a “conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange”.
The cooperative principle describes
how people interact with one another. People who obey the cooperative principle in their language use will make sure
thatwhat they say in a conversation furthers
the purpose of that conversation. Paul Grice proposes four conversational maxims that arise from the pragmatics of
natural language. The Grice’s Maxims are
a way to explain the link between utterances and what is understood from them. The principle describes how effective
communication in conversation is achieved
in common social situations and is furtherbroken down into the four Maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and
Manner.
communication between people surrounding us, we will find many of them disobey the Grice’s
maxims. People sometimes break the rule
of maxims of quality, quantity, relevance or even manner. Breaking the rules of cooperative principle or Grice’s
maxims iscalled flouting and hedging.
Usually, we can find some
flouting in the form of tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical
question,and irony. Furthermore, the maxims
are hedged when the information is not totally accurate but seem informative, well founded and relevant;
moreover the speaker quotes the information
from other people.
In this research, I discuss about
flouting and hedging maxims used by the main
characters on “Dad Day Camp’. In my opinion, discussing about flouting and hedging maxims used by the main characters
is really an interesting topic because
it has some uniqueness. First of all, languages used by the main characters have many variations, for example
they used irony languages, metaphor
languages and even idiom languages. Secondly, in communication people tend to speak what is in their mind,
they never think about the rules, especially
rules of cooperative principle. Therefore, they flout and hedge the rules of cooperative principle. Thirdly, there were
two different characters on “Daddy Day
Camp”. One is white American and the other is black American. Both of them produce different flouting and hedging.
And the last is that “Daddy Day Camp”
has recently been a favorite family movie.
Actually, there are some
researchers who have discussed about flouting and hedging, they are: first, Hanifa (2001)
investigates flouting of the felicity conditions
of conversational maxims in Oliver Goldsmith’sShe Stoops the Conquer.Second, Priambodo (2002) investigates
violation and flouting of Grice’s maxims
in Date of Salesman. Third, Harianto (2003) investigates the use of conversational maxims on the special terms
used by Indonesian Chatters in IRC Malang
Channel. Fourth, Rusdiana (2004) investigates flouting and hedging maxims on comic strip “Born Loser” in the
Jakarta Post. And the last, Rahma (2005)
investigates flouting and hedging maxims found on pojokcolumn in Kompas.
To distinguish this study with
those previous explanations mentioned above,
I really interested in studying flouting andhedging maxims of utterance used by the main characters on “Daddy Day Camp
“. Iexpect that discussing about
flouting and hedging maxims can give very important contribution toward linguistic study because people certainly do
some mistakes in using their language when
they inform the information in an unexpected condition or they will try to make their partner of speak convinced about
what they are talking about, yet they have
flouted and hedged the maxims. Learning Grice’ s theory and studying the flouting and hedging will help people to do
research about flouting and hedging used
in all languages in the word.
1.2 Problems of the Study Based on the background of the study above
this study focuses on the following
problems: 1. How are the maxims flouted by the main
characters on “Daddy Day Camp”? 2. How
are the maxims hedged by the main characters on “Daddy Day Camp”? 1.3
Objectives of the Study The main objectives of the study are to help the
readers know and understand about
flouting and hedging maxims used by the main characters on “Daddy Day Camp”. Besides, this study also
providesthe answers from the research
problems of the study. The objectives of the study are: 1. To
describe how the maxims are flouted by the main characters on “Daddy Day Camp”.
2. To describe how the maxims are hedged by the
main characters on “Daddy Day Camp”.
1.4 Significance of the Study The finding of this study is expected to give
both theoretical and practical contribution
in discourse studies, especially in analyzing flouting and hedging maxims used by some people in their
communication. Theoretically, the finding of the research is
expected to be one of the sources in
discourse studies, particularly on the analyzing flouting and hedging maxims used in spoken language.
Practically, it is expected to be more
practical. The students who learn English
are expected to be able to recognize and toanalyze the flouting and hedging maxims used in spoken language. In
addition, to the teachers, the result of
the research will be an additional material for Discourse studies. Also the
result of the study is expected to be a
contribution to others who are interested in doing similar field of the research as a previous.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the
Study There were many topics related
with discourse studies. Among others are implicature and cooperative principle. What I
mean with implicature is anything that
is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the utterance. Then, cooperative principle has
four maxims; maxim of quantity, maxim of
quality, maxim of manner and maxim of relevance. In this study I focus only on the analyzing the flouting and hedging
maxims used by main characters on “Daddy
Day Camp”; they are Charlie and Lance.
1.6 Definition of the Key Terms The title of this study is “A Study on
Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by the
Main Characters on “Daddy Day Camp”. To avoid misunderstanding I give some definitions
related tothe key times.
1.
Flouting maxim Flouting maxim
means that the speaker breaks the maxims when producing the utterance in the form of
rhetorical strategies, namely tautology,
metaphor, overstatement, understatement,rhetorical question and irony.
2. Hedging maxim Hedging maxim means that the speaker breaks
the maxims when the information is not
totally accurate but seems informative, well founded and relevant.
3. Implicature Anything that is inferred from an utterance
but that is not a condition for the
truth of the utterance.
4. Cooperative principle A principle of conversation that was proposed
by Grice 1975, stating that participants
expect that each will make a “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it
occurs, bythe accepted purpose or direction
of the talk exchange.” 5. Daddy Day Camp An American comedy film directed by Fred
Savage in 2007 and its theatrical was
released on August 08, 2007 and on January 29, 2008 on DVD format.
7 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter discusses the review of related
literature which included the description
about Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, Context and Text, Written and Spoken Language, Cooperative Principle,
Flouting Maxims, Hedging Maxims and Previous
Study.
2.1 Pragmatics A number of
aspects of language use considered under the heading of discourse analysis are also discussed in the
area of investigation known as pragmatics.
Pragmatics is especially interested in the relationship between language and context. It concludes the study
of howinterpretation of language depends
on knowledge of the world, how speaker use and understand utterances, and how the structure of sentences is
influenced byrelationships between speakers and hearers (Richards et al 1992 in Paltridge).
Yule (1996: 4) states that
pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of
those forms. In this three-part distinction,
only pragmatics allows humans into theanalysis. The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one
can talk about people’s intended meaning,
their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions ( for example, request) that they are performing when
they speak. The big disadvantage is that
all these very human concepts are extremelydifficult to analyze in a consistent and objective way. Two friends
having a conversation may imply some thing
and infer some others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that we can point to as the explicit source of ‘the
meaning’ of what was communicated.
Moreover, Schiffrin (1994: 190)
says that pragmatics is another broad approach
to discourse: it deals with three concepts(meaning, context, communication) that are themselves extremely
vast and unwieldy. Given such breadth,
it is not surprising that the scope of pragmatics is so wide, or that pragmatics faces definitional dilemmas similar
to those faced by discourse analysis In addition, pragmatics was defined by Morris
in Schiffrin as a branch of semiotics,
the study of sign. Morris viewed semiosis (the process in which something functions as a sign) as having four
parts. A sign vehicle is that which acts
as sign; a designatum is that to which the sign refers; an interpretant is the effect in virtue of which the sign vehicle is
a sign; an interpreter is the organism upon
whom the sign has an effect.
Besides, to defining different
aspects of the semiosis process, Morris identified
three ways of studying signs: syntax is the study of formal relations of signs to one another, semantic is the study of
how signs are related to the objects to
which they are applicable, pragmatic is the study of the relation of signs to interpreters. Thus pragmatics is the study of
how interpreters engage in the “taking-account-of”
designate (the construction of interpret ants) of sign-vehicles.
Based on the given definitions above, we may
conclude that there are three important
components in pragmatics, namely: how theinterpretation and use of language depends on the shared knowledge
between the speaker and the hearer; how
speakers use and understand; and how the structure of the sentences is influenced by the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer.
2.2 Discourse Analysis Renkema (1993:1) says that discourse studies
are the disciple devoted to the
investigation of the relationship between form and function in verbal communication. It defines that the
investigation ofthe relationship between forms of communication are statement, question, and
the function of communication such as
invitation, refusal, complaint etc.
Moreover, McCarthy and Carter in Brian
Paltridge (2000: 4) state that discourse
as a view of language which takes into account the fact that linguistic pattern exist across stretches of text. These
patterns of language extend beyond the word,
clauses and sentences which have been the traditional concern of much language teaching. The view of language we
take is one which focuses, where appropriate
on complete spoken and written texts and on the social and cultural contexts in which such language operates.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar